Alien 5 (a.k.a. the first film)

A dying trillionaire sends a space mission to explore the possibility of meeting humanity's parent race on a distant, newly discovered planet. There are tunnels, shadows, slimy things, dupicitousness, and a big giant face. Hilarity, as ever, ensues on LV-223.

"Prometheus" (2012)

directed by Ridley Scott

written by Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaihts

starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Logan Marshall-Green, Idris Elba, and Guy Pearce

How it is?

I have to come right out with it. The visuals are amazing, but they can't cover up the problems with the script. (My inner scifi fanboy really hated to say that about "Prometheus", but there it is.)

The Players

At the top there are Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba. Fassbender as the Weyland Corporation's premiere android model, David, steals the show. His is a touching and simultaneously sympathetic and casually menacing performance as the android who seems maybe to want to be human... or at least equal, more than a servant. Theron's portrayal of Vickers, the Corporation's no-nonsense executive representative on board the Prometheus, is spot on and arcs well over the course of the film. Idris Elba as Janek, the captain of the Prometheus, is as close to an everyman as the we get in the film, and his performance as the good captain brings a practical, grounded humanity to the film that is missing for the most part in other main characters.

At the other end of the spectrum there are Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green, but it's not necessarily a matter of lacking performances but rather cardboard characters as written. Rapace's character, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, was the lynchpin of the whole mission, her theory of an extraterrestially seeded Earth. The theory was more interesting than the character, and the character seemed to be sort of another attempt at bringing scifi and movie fans another Ellen Ripley. Rapace/Shaw simply didn't get enough traction, what with everything else going on in the film. Marshall-Green's character, Shaw's love interest, Charlie Holloway, wasn't substantial enough a character for him to be much more than cardboard. That's not a fault of either and everything to do with the script. And then there's Guy Pearce as Weyland Corporation's aged namesake, Peter Weyland. Pearce manages well with the character through a lot of prosthetic makeup, although Weyland's presence is relatively slight, in both screen time and story contribution.

Behind the Camera

At the top there is Ridley Scott. He is an astonishing film director. With Dariusz Wolski (cinematographer) and Arthur Max (production designer) he made an amazing visual follow-up/prequel to the rest of the Alien franchise. The attention to detail, every little thing practical and digital, was as is his career reputation suggests, mightily impressive. The film moves along at a fair clip the whole way through, with appropriate rising and falling action so the audience gets neither exhausted or lost. Well, mostly neither. The kicker for the film is the writing is where it doesn't quite hold up.

At the other end of things, there are there's the writing. In a nutshell, Prometheus is either a bit overcomplicated or a bit shoddily written. The skeleton of the story is simple enough and intriguing. There were just too many layers added, for whatever reasons, by screenwriters Spaiht and Lindelof, and rather than an interesting ensemble of characters, each with contributions to make, there were a few interesting characters and some other ones thrown in because story formula demanded it. It just never really gels. (Gosh, my inner fanboy is reeling at this.) The writing simply doesn't measure up to Scott's direction and visual scale or what anyone was expecting, really, and that's a real shame.

The Verdict

Prometheus seemed to be more about asking questions than about characters being confronted by those questions and acting accordingly, which is what weakens it. It felt like a conflicted film, a strong visual sense that wanted to show things and get across ideas and a script that didn't know how to stage or explain them effectively so it tended to play with what were sometimes rather obvious tropes. I am notoriously unforgiving of what I believe to be slack or poor or substandard writing, especially from people who ought to know better, and Spaight and Lindelof's script is a decidedly average at best, and the rest of the film can't escape from it.

Due to the strength of the performances by Fassbender, Theron, and Elba and the combined expert visual and technical machinations of Scott and the production crew, the film still comes in looking better than average. It's just that it feels awfully forced in places, trying to cover over the things that really don't really work but were kept in anyway. Alas, the film couldn't live up to the hype.

Big things have small beginnings that make for big films.

"Prometheus" (2012)

It took thirty-three years for it to show up, a prequel to "Alien" or at least something to give a shot at explaining the background. It's Ridley Scott's instead of someone else's, which means the likelihood of real quality is much higher than average. I'm looking forward to seeing this one.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

You really have seen it all before. Seriously, you have. What's more is that what you saw before, the film released twenty-nine years ago and of the same name and premise, was better, even if you saw it edited for television, in black and white, and with the sound off.

“The Thing” (2011)

directed by Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.

written by Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore

starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Eric Christian Olsen, Jørgen Langhelle, Trond Espen Seim, Stig Henrik Hoff, Carsten Bjørnlund, Jan Gunnar Røise, Paul Braunnstein

How is it?

I'm biased. How biased am I? Check this out, and then read on. [pause] Okay... now I'll set aside my abiding respect and adoration of the 1982 masterpiece, and we will proceed.

So how is it?

It's just manages to reach the level of an average horror movie, and truth be told, that's being a little bit generous. What is lacks in suspense, atmosphere, cinematography, and dialogue it more than makes up for in lack of audience investment, predictability, and in computer-generated gore and fire effects. It moves in fits and starts, really only gets traction for one scene, and the rest of the time is altogether unsteady. Alas, it's the usual culprit, (attempted) spectacle over substance. In a word: hollow. (I'm not a fan of the "average" horror movie.)

The Players

It isn't an ensemble piece, but it's not really a vehicle for anyone in particular either, except maybe Joel Edgerton and Jørgen Langhelle. The actors all do what they can with what can't be called anything other than a very weak script, and that's unfortunate. The characters were all cardboard cutouts for the genre, up to an especially including Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Ripley, er- Dr. Kate Lloyd and Ulrich Thomsen as Ash the android medical officer, er- the diabolical but Euro-cool medical officer.

The only two that seem even remotely sympathetic and/or not plain old story devices are Edgerton as Macready, er- Sam Carter the chopper pilot and Langhelle as Clark, er- Lars the station dog keeper. Well... okay, three. Hoff as Peder, the station commander's XO, did stand out. These three managed to come out on top, and good on'em.

Behind the Camera

I'll start with the good...ish. That'd be the special effects... or most of them. During production and up until today the word has been they really favored practical effects and used digital to enhance, trying to keep close to the totally non-digital effects of the Carpenter film. Maybe it's a testament to the effects department's skill that I couldn't tell there were many practical, non-CG effects at all in the film. Some were obviously physical, and some had me wondering. The downside is they were awfully over-the-top, very Resident Evil, seeming far more for shock than for scare, and they looked rather raw, like they weren't really finished. Then there was the CG fire. Oy vey. All that CG fire. Yikes. Now on to the ugh portion of this review.

By and large, the direction and cinematography simply didn't do anything for the film except telegraph what was coming next and actually be a bit boring. Rather than usher a sense of claustrophobia and imminent dread, it just looked rather... well, meh, like it was just kind of there. I seriously doubt Heijningen will be given another $38 million to make another movie, let alone a get his mitts on a legendary franchise. Despite his ardent fandom and devotion to Carpenter's classic, his homage prequel didn't work.

The script was just kind of there as well. There's not much to say about it other than like much of the rest of the film it seemed very flat, impersonal, and paint-by-numbers. It's so disappointing because of what the producers and director claim to have been trying to do, what act they were attempting to follow. It really could and ought have been much better. There aren't excuses other than incompetence, not caring, or too many writers. It felt like they came up with a bunch of "cool moments" and "cool scenes" and worked out how to string them together. Honestly, I doubt that's what it was, but it's what it felt like watching it. I think they copied the 1982 film. Maybe that's what we get when you get a script approved and then before filming totally rewrite it, which was what happened to The Thing. There is a lesson there, Hollywood. Take it.

The Verdict

This didn't seem much like a prequel. It felt like one of those new-fangled "re-imaginings" Hollywood seems so keen on these days. It had a few interesting, even exciting moments, but they were few enough and far enough between to render the whole thing just on the lowest edge of average. It simply never gelled. If you've seen the trailer, there are no surprises for you in it at all.

Wait for it to hit the dollar theaters, cable/satellite, or streaming video. If then.